UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i wonder what the numbers would look like if a predominantly black society settled the united states on the back of white slave labor followed by centuries of institutional racism and unequal access to opportunity.
Cliven Bundy, conservative hero and rancher, is actually a bigoted POS.
- Thread starter MidwesternGro
- Start date
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
May I have Australia for $600, Alex.
killemsoftly
Well-Known Member
Buck makes a seminal point here.
Further, look at other societies. Black people are a minority in many parts of the 'new world'. A distinct parallel exists between the u.s. and brazil where black people were slaves and are struggling to improve their lot in life.
Also, imagine, if you will, a world where WHITE people were a minority and were stopped and searched by police regularly on their way to school. How would you feel?
Have to say, have yet to see any actual courage of conviction and rational arguments from all the 'haters' as yet.
Still.
As you were.
That's why I prefaced it with "As far as Welfare goes (TANF) .."
That was to just let you know that I was only referring to just Welfare as it is delivered under the TANF program, sorry you weren't able to grasp that and ended up repeating me, I though mine was more succinct though.
I dunno, gonna be real hard to prove it though.
killemsoftly
Well-Known Member
Sorry i missed that.
As I said it's part of the picture but only part.
seems a 'parsing' approach
Succinct enough? Happy?
Impossible for you to know if Bucks post was seminal or not, you need some history to make a statement like that first.
Hypothetical situations do not prove anything.
I imagined a world in which whites where the minority, and it was fucking AWESOME!! Does that disprove anything?
killemsoftly
Well-Known Member
You really do live up to your name, don't you?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
all my posts are seminal.
of, relating to, or denoting semen.
did your family still have its farm?
Nope, in fact that didn't even pop into my head at all. I mostly thought about how whites have been slaves many times throughout history, yet there seems to be no "Slave Gene" or "slave Mentality" that white people carried through the generations as some claimed has happened to others, and then use that claim as the basis for explaining away all the facts that always seem to get in the way of their arguments. Then we are asked to "Imagine what it would be like" as if that is going to prove something that we all can agree on. At some point you have to stop making excuses.
This is what victory looks like.
killemsoftly
Well-Known Member
The whites would have organized, rose up and either slaughtered or oppressed there former overlords.
They would have freed themselves and then dominated the land.
It would have looked a lot like South Africa until the early 1990's.
It is hard to call a mortgage deduction and tax breaks of any kind welfare. Although some do, the things you mentioned have a goal of encouraging productive and beneficial behavior.
The more traditional welfare is money given to help someone exist.
No one buys a house to get a tax break. No one donates to charity to reduce their tax burden, because it is still a net loss for them.
However, welfare is given to persons because they have no other means to survive. It isn't encouraging productive beneficial behaviour, it is filling the gap to allow existence.
Apples and oranges.
killemsoftly
Well-Known Member
Not apples and oranges; wordplay.
A mortgage expense deduction is a "subsidy". Homeowner federal largesse. welfare. As are corporate loopholes and offshore profit non-repatriation.
Welfare. Lock, stock, the lot.
Differences lie in word play and perceptions of 'deservedness' (not sure if that's grammatically correct; will leave it to hairsplitters).
Subsidies are a false economy; witness the sub-prime meltdown that cascaded across the world in 2008.
As you were.
killemsoftly
Well-Known Member
Btw: i do enjoy these exchanges bnb. They keep me sharp.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Dude, you're not a troll.
If anything, you seem retarded and confused, you also can't ask someone "why won't you let me troll you"...
Some day, maybe when you add a little subtlety.
natro.hydro
Well-Known Member
Sorry but this statement is wrong, maybe you were using sarcasm and i did not catch ot but rich people do both of those things to catch a tax break. Perfect example, my aunt and uncle eother needed to get a car loan or remortgage their house or they get hit with large income taxes. They also donate to avoid getting hit with a huge bill come tax time. And donating while not gaining anything, if you are smart about it wont cost ya all that much, just my 2¢
Sent from my SCH-R930 using Rollitup mobile app
Rich people give because they want to. It still costs you money to give.
If you make millions per year, you're pretty much paying 40% on all your income to the federal government.
So, your salary is 10 million.
You give 500k away as deductible charitable donations.
That makes your taxable income 9.5 million now.
The 500k you gave to charity, had you kept it, you could have put 60% (300k) in your pocket.
Charitable donations cost you more money than taxes.
People donate because it's the right thing to do.
As with the mortgage interest deduction, it is small. Interest is low these days. It's spread out over 15 to 30 years. It is front heavy, but there again, this is an activity to be encouraged.
Neither one of these constitutes welfare. People taking advantage of this would be just fine without it.